Case at a Glance
A couple married in 2019 and living apart since March 2021 filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act at the Family Court, Indore. The husband, who lives in the USA, asked to appear by video conferencing, with his father acting as power of attorney holder; the Family Court refused, relying on the Supreme Court’s emphasis on physical presence in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, (2017) 10 SC CK 0077. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held that the Family Court had applied Santhini mechanically without considering the facts, and relied on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 09 SC CK 0030, which permits video conferencing where a party cannot appear in person for a valid reason. The husband was allowed to appear by video conferencing, with the parties to appear before the Family Court on 17 January 2027.
The parties married on 24 June 2019 and a daughter was born to them in September 2021. They have been living separately since March 2021. After attempts at mediation, they filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore (RCS HM/1725/2026). The husband lives in the USA.
The husband applied for permission to appear through video conferencing, with his father appearing as his power of attorney holder. The Family Court dismissed the application, relying on Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, (2018) 1 SCC 1, in which the Supreme Court stressed the importance of physical presence for mediation and conciliation in matrimonial cases. The husband challenged that order before the High Court under Article 227, pointing to a co-ordinate bench decision in Rucha v. Kush Dewoo (M.P. No. 7735/2023), which held that Santhini does not bar the use of video conferencing in Section 13-B cases, and to the fact that settlement efforts had already been made.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Family Court refuse to let a spouse living abroad appear by video conferencing in a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent, by relying on Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh?
Santhini Is Not a Blanket Bar in Mutual Consent Cases
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held that the Family Court had erred by not considering the factual circumstances and by applying Santhini mechanically. Insisting on physical presence in a mutual consent case where one spouse lives in the USA, and where mediation had already been tried, would cause hardship, especially to the husband abroad. The Court found the matter fit for its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, which recognised that where a party cannot appear in person for a valid reason, the court may use video conferencing and allow genuine representation through close relatives. Since counsel for both parties jointly informed the Court that the matter was in any case fixed for the husband’s personal appearance in January 2027, the Court held that “no fruitful purpose would be served to delay the proceedings”, directed the parties to remain present before the Family Court on 17 January 2027, and permitted the husband to appear through video conferencing.
What the Court Actually Held
- Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh cannot be applied mechanically to refuse video conferencing in a Section 13-B mutual consent divorce; the facts of each case must be considered.
- Following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, where a party cannot appear in person for a valid reason, the court may permit appearance by video conferencing and genuine representation through close relatives.
- Refusing a spouse living in the USA permission to appear by video, after mediation had been attempted, causes hardship and warrants interference under Article 227.
- The husband was permitted to appear through video conferencing; the parties are to remain present before the Family Court on 17 January 2027, and the petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many mutual consent divorces involve a spouse working abroad. This ruling helps such couples avoid costly travel solely to record statements.
- It clarifies that Santhini, which concerned transfer of matrimonial cases and the value of physical presence for reconciliation, is not an absolute bar to video hearings in mutual consent cases.
- It shows how Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur continues to shape procedure in Section 13-B cases, including representation through close relatives.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Couples
- If one spouse lives abroad, a request to appear by video conferencing in a mutual consent divorce can be made to the Family Court.
- Show genuine reasons, such as residence and work abroad, and that mediation or settlement efforts have already taken place.
- If the Family Court refuses, the order can be challenged before the High Court under Article 227.
For Counsel
- Cite Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur and the co-ordinate bench ruling in Rucha v. Kush Dewoo against a mechanical reading of Santhini.
- Place on record the efforts at mediation and the spouse’s proof of residence abroad.
- Note that the operative order here expressly permitted the husband’s video appearance; it did not separately rule on the father appearing as power of attorney holder.
Key Takeaways
- Santhini is not a blanket bar to video conferencing in Section 13-B cases.
- Family courts must consider the facts, including a spouse’s residence abroad and prior mediation.
- Amardeep Singh permits video appearance and representation through close relatives for valid reasons.
- NRI husband allowed to appear by video; parties to appear before the Family Court on 17 January 2027.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I get a mutual consent divorce in India while living abroad?
Courts can permit a spouse living abroad to appear by video conferencing for valid reasons. In this case the MP High Court allowed a husband living in the USA to appear by video in a Section 13-B petition, relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur.
What did the Supreme Court say in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh?
In Santhini, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of physical presence for reconciliation in matrimonial disputes. The MP High Court held that this cannot be applied mechanically to refuse video appearance in a mutual consent case.
Can a relative appear on behalf of the spouse abroad?
Amardeep Singh recognises genuine representation through close relatives where a party cannot appear for a valid reason. In this case the operative order only permitted the husband’s video appearance and did not separately decide the father’s role as power of attorney holder.
Conclusion
The order is a sensible use of technology in family law. Where both spouses have agreed to part ways and mediation has been tried, requiring a spouse to fly in from abroad merely to be physically present serves little purpose, and Santhini does not demand it.
Practical takeaway: In Section 13-B petitions involving a spouse abroad, apply early for video appearance, citing Amardeep Singh; if refused on Santhini alone, the refusal can be corrected under Article 227.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com